Q&A with Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson
Says Supreme Court decisions are free of politics
It's been a tough year for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The last two elections, unparalleled in both rancor and expense, have made it clear that the state's highest court is not immune to the nasty partisanship that has infected other branches of government.
The court is also in the difficult position of deciding whether to discipline one of its own, Justice Annette Ziegler, who was elected last year amid allegations of ethics violations in cases she presided over as a Washington County Circuit judge. Ziegler has admitted that she failed to consider conflicts of interest in the cases. The Wisconsin Judicial Commission has recommended a reprimand, the least severe discipline, but her colleagues could also impose censure, unpaid suspension or removal from the bench.
Ziegler and Michael Gableman -- who prevailed over Justice Louis Butler in April's election -- were elected with the help of conservative groups, most significantly Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, which is incensed over recent Supreme Court rulings that lifted the cap on medical malpractice awards, made it easier for plaintiffs to receive punitive damages and allowed a victim to sue lead paint manufacturers. These groups spent millions in negative ads, as did the Greater Wisconsin Committee and other liberal groups, that virtually drowned out campaigns by the candidates themselves.
Gableman's win over Butler, the first time in 41 years that a challenger has unseated a sitting justice, tipped the balance of power on the court to the conservative faction, putting the liberal block at a 4-3 disadvantage.
Buoyed by their success, WMC is gearing up for another blistering campaign against Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson next year, branding her an "activist" judge who, like her liberal cohorts, the group says, legislates from the bench.
Abrahamson, 74, is a 32-year veteran of the court, appointed by former Gov. Patrick Lucey in 1976 and elected three times since. She is considered to be part of the liberal faction of the court, which lost the majority with Gableman's election. As chief justice for the last 11 years, she is widely viewed to be an effective leader by virtue of her tact, wit and intelligence.
Abrahamson is also a nationally recognized legal scholar and was once considered for an appointment to the United States Supreme Court by former President Bill Clinton.
She says the Wisconsin Supreme Court has made unprecedented strides in outreach in recent years, holding court hearings throughout the state to meet with local officials and the public. She is now in the midst of a tour of all of Wisconsin's 72 counties to hear concerns from judges, county court staffers, probation and parole officers, police and others who deal with the justice system.
She touts a recent University of California-Davis study measuring the influence of state Supreme Courts that recently ranked Wisconsin's top court sixth, in a tie with Minnesota's, based on the number of rulings handed down by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that were followed by courts outside of the state.
She takes the bitterness of the last two elections in stride, laughingly saying that she plans to invoke the "forces of good" in what could become another electoral mudfest. With three elections already under her belt, she says she's ready to run a "vigorous campaign."
Before a recent question and answer session she was handed a Capital Times article in which Republicans branded her "an ultra-liberal judicial activist." The article was published on March 18, 1989.
Q. As that article shows, you've been called an "activist judge" for two decades now. What does that mean to you?
A. The polls show that activist judge has no meaning to anyone. Nobody knows what activist judge means when they say it, and for the listener it doesn't have any meaning. When you say somebody's an activist judge, what you're really saying is I don't like that particular opinion. I think the people who use it think it's a slur and it will ultimately take on their connotation.
Q. Do the divisive politics that have crept into the election process extend into the workings of the court?
A. They should not. They do not. They will not. We will not allow that. Each case is judged on the basis of the law and fact. I don't expect any justice elected to this court to do anything but adhere to his or her constitutional obligation.
Q. Do the larger donations coming to Supreme Court campaigns from certain groups raise a concern?
A. Polls seem to show that the public believes that judges are influenced by contributions. Whether that perception is accurate or not really sometimes is beside the point because the perception can become the reality. That's why the seven judges on this court all signed a letter supporting public campaign financing for justices of this court so that much of the money is removed from the race so no one will have a perception that justice can be bought in this state.
Q. The conflict of interest case against Annette Ziegler would seem to be an awkward situation for the court. What effect has it had?
A. That issue is still pending in the court and we will not discuss it further.
Q. On a personal level, do the justices get along?
A. On a personal level the judges get along. But that doesn't mean they always agree. They're always very polite and always very nice to each other. But sometimes someone feels very strongly about a case and will indicate strong feelings. And that's OK.
Q. As chief justice, do you think the court will be more difficult to preside over now that the faction to which you're widely seen to belong is in the minority?
A. The court is usually relatively easy to preside over. We all know the rules and adhere to them. And we do the best we can to be unanimous where we can. But the point of having several people on the court is to have differing experiences, different viewpoints, different opportunities to have looked at various aspects of the law. If everybody always agreed we could have a one-justice court and we'd be overpaying six. So the whole point of a collegial seven-member is to talk with each other and educate each other about the case.
Q. You've said you plan to run on your record next year. What are the highlights of your tenure on the court you plan to publicize?
A. I've written hundreds of majority opinions, concurring opinions and dissenting opinions. I've been part of the court during its history when it's been one of the nation's most influential high courts. I've been privileged to be the chief justice for the last 11 years and I think the court has made great strides in the administration of the court system during that time.
Q. Any trepidation about walking into what could be a similar fire storm to what Louis Butler and before him Linda Clifford endured at the hands of Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and other groups?
A. I've had three elections, '79, '89 and '99. All elections are different from the proceeding ones. In 1999 I got about 63 percent of the popular vote in all counties but one, so there's still room for improvement as I move forward to the 2009 election. I will, as previously, do a vigorous campaign, and my goal is to get more and more people interested in the judiciary and judicial elections so we have more than 18 or 19 percent of the people voting as they did in the last election.
Mike DeVries/The Capital Times
Shirley Abrahamson is a 32-year veteran of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, appointed by former Gov. Patrick Lucey.
